The point I was originally trying to make (tongue-in-cheek, by the way)
was that there have been several changes in ownership, management,
factory location, designers, etc. over the years. Nearly every time the
public has bemoaned that the new cars were not "real MGs". Yet some 50
to 70 years later we still love and cherish these cars and proudly
declare when asked "it's an MG". We don't say "it a badge-engineered
Austin", for example.
Time has a way of smoothing things over. Relax, enjoy the car for what
it is, wherever it was built, whatever its badge says.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> Of WSpohn4@aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 9:47 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: New MG Sports Car
> In a message dated 10/19/02 7:16:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > Listers,
> > What constitutes a Honda, Chrysler, Chevy, Cadillac,
> > Jaguar, etc. etc. etc. Stop already. If it is sold
> > as an MG and you like it, it's an MG. If it's sold as
> > a Jag and you like it, it's a Jag.
> These arguments never seem to convince anyone on either side of the
> of the logic offered by the other side, and they go on, and on,
> Perhaps we could agree that when there has been a clear discontinuity
> manufacturer, that the new car shares nothing but the name with the
> Examples of this are the newer version called Bugatti, and the recent
> car called the Jensen. No ties to history or tradition, just someone
> the money to buy an established name to try and market a completely
> product through name recognition.
> Now as to where the name MG fits in here........
> (IMNVHO, 'real MGs', if that term can be used, ceased in 1980,
> Kimber would have been rolling in his grave from about 1975 on....)
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive